Lv 7
Jim2 asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 2 months ago

Does anyone have any idea what this PA judge is talking about? Apparently he is blocking further certification of the vote until Nov. 27'th?

Certainly this won't make any difference in the results. Biden is the victor. But is she talking about a few PA counties that missed the certification deadline?

From Bloomberg:

A Pennsylvania judge issued an order temporarily preventing the state from taking any further actions to certify the election results. The ruling stops action until after a Nov. 27 hearing, “to the extent that there remains any further action to perfect the certification of the results of the 2020 General Election.” Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar certified Biden’s 80,555-vote victory in Pennsylvania, which was announced in tweet by Democratic Governor Tom Wolf yesterday. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro’s office didn’t immediately have a comment when reached by phone. The case is separate from the federal lawsuit by President Donald Trump’s campaign.."


Forbes has a more complete explanation of the situation:


Apparently at the most 12,000 votes are at stake, 10,000 late mail-ins plus 2000 other ballots. If every one of of those votes were for Trump, it would not change the results.

 quote from article:

"election law experts predicted...the GOP plaintiffs’ case will fail."

Update 2:

I like both answers.

2 Answers

  • ?
    Lv 6
    2 months ago
    Favorite Answer

    They are reviewing this case: The lawsuit claimed the Pennsylvania’s legislature’s adoption of expanded absentee voting last year was unconstitutional -- even though the legislature was controlled by Republicans and there wasn’t a challenge to the new system until Trump lost. It was a lawsuit brought by other Republicans not Rudy's team

  • 2 months ago

    My guess is the judge is making sure all possible republican excuses are gone.  This case, brought by republicans, as quoted below, says the actions of the republican legislature were unconstitutional.  It's a silly case, and I think the judge wants to make sure the full silliness is answered, not just swatted away.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.